Amkerman's Argument For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#181  Postby rEvolutionist » May 18, 2012 10:49 am

Shrunk wrote:Poor amkerman. I guess he didn't expect to run into people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. (Not including myself among them, I hasten to add, at least not when it comes to the technicalities of formal logic.)


Me neither! I'm well out of my depth. I think my earlier comments on logic look decidedly ridiculous... :oops:
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#182  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2012 11:01 am

jamest wrote:I didn't make that suggestion. He himself stated that he wasn't including himself in the bunch of people who knew what they were talking about. My ensuing question was about how he could then judge who the people were, who know what they're talking about.


For instance, if someone claimed to be an expert mathematician and that he had figured out a proof for Fermat's theorem, I probably wouldn't be able to understand if his proof worked or not. But if I already know he doesn't even understand basic addition and subtraction, I can reasonably assume that he's talking bullshit. And that's especially the case if there are a bunch of people around who can add and subtract and they're all saying it's bullshit.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#183  Postby Spearthrower » May 18, 2012 11:24 am

amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.



Your lack of belief in god wasn't very well thought through then, was it? Considering you had to contemplate your 'rejection of God', which is patently nonsensical: not believing does not equate to rejecting.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 41
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#184  Postby CookieJon » May 18, 2012 11:42 am

amkerman wrote:

For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.

[blah blah therefore God.]


Non-philosopher here. Please help me understand, anyone...

An ant (let's say) is not conscious and can't even conceieve of such a thing as "consciousness", yet it does exist out there all over the world.

Q. Why then is it assumed that "consciousness" is at all relevant to proving the existence of the Creator. Any number of unknowable phenomena analogous to consciousness as far as that ant's concerned may very well make the idea of the Creator actually being a "subject independent consciousness" logically incoherent or just frivolous.

It strikes me as a bit presumptuous to assume it can be understood why God *must* exist, let alone actually understand.

Where's my pipe?
Last edited by CookieJon on May 18, 2012 7:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CookieJon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 8384
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#185  Postby ADParker » May 18, 2012 11:53 am

amkerman wrote:Again, listen. It's glaringly necessary that I keep repeating the same shit over and over. While shrunks argument has fuck-all to do with anything I have said, his argument remains (as has always been the case) invalid.

1. If god exists then God is a square circle.
2. Square circles can't exist.

What do you think are valid conclusions based on these premises?

Simple. This is a classic example of Modus tollens (denying the consequent.)

It's structure is this:

p1. If p then q
p2. Not-q
Therefore
c. not-p

The valid conclusion therefore would be:
c. God does not exist.

amkerman wrote:Answer: none

The only things that can be deduced given these premises is that either:

A. Premise 1 is false, OR
B. Premise 2 is false

Neither of these conclusions follows from the premises. The argument is not valid.

Incorrect. This is basic introductory formal logic amkerman.

amkerman wrote:This should not be surprising considering that in classical logic each term (in this case "God" and "square circle" MUST denote at least one existing object.

Incorrect.
In the case of seeking to establish a syllogisms validity-value (is it valid or invalid?) neither the truth-value of any of the premises, or the real-world existence of any of the terms used is of any relevance whatsoever. Validity is not about truth or reality, but correct argument structure.

For example the modus tollens argument:
If p then q
Not-q
Therefore
Not-p

is valid, even though the terms (p and q) not only are not existing objects, but aren't objects at all, being nothing more than place holders (variables) for any object one wishes to then plug in.

Furthermore; purely fictional terms and statements can just as readily form logically valid syllogisms as existing ones. Nothing in the argument has to exist for the arguments to be valid, only the consistency of the structure comes into it.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 45
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#186  Postby Mister Agenda » May 18, 2012 4:09 pm

CookieJon wrote:
Animavore wrote:Always 'arguments' for God, never ' evidence'.

err.... The whole universe!?

:roll:


Affirming the consequent.

If God, therefore the universe.
The universe.
Therefore, God.

If p, then q.
Q.
Therefore, p.

If I am the president of the USA, I will have two eyes.
I have two eyes.
Therefore, I am the president of the USA.
User avatar
Mister Agenda
 
Posts: 555
Age: 55
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#187  Postby Mister Agenda » May 18, 2012 5:50 pm

Thommo wrote:
Scar wrote:
amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:

The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.


No, you weren't. That's Hack's point.


If he didn't believe in a god, no matter how poor his reasoning or lack of it was, he was an atheist.

I suppose it's possible he's lying, but I don't see any rational reason to assume he is, or any rational reason to start claiming it here without evidence.


He seems to be defining atheists who accept reality as real as theists who don't know that they're theists, so I think his position now is that when he was an atheist he was really a theist, but at the time he really thought he didn't believe in God, which is the same state we're in now so then he was an atheist by our own standards but now he doesn't believe he really didn't believe in God. Simple.
User avatar
Mister Agenda
 
Posts: 555
Age: 55
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#188  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2012 6:56 pm

Mister Agenda wrote:He seems to be defining atheists who accept reality as real as theists who don't know that they're theists, so I think his position now is that when he was an atheist he was really a theist, but at the time he really thought he didn't believe in God, which is the same state we're in now so then he was an atheist by our own standards but now he doesn't believe he really didn't believe in God. Simple.


Exactly. Because God is carrots, and everyone believes in carrots. So even if someone claims to be an atheist, if he believes in carrots he still believes in God, even though he does not realize it.

Sorry, not carrots. Consciousness. (Not that it makes a difference.)
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#189  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 10:16 pm

Mister Agenda wrote:He seems to be defining atheists who accept reality as real as theists who don't know that they're theists, so I think his position now is that when he was an atheist he was really a theist, but at the time he really thought he didn't believe in God, which is the same state we're in now so then he was an atheist by our own standards but now he doesn't believe he really didn't believe in God. Simple.


Yeah, pretty much. And as ludicrous as that is, it doesn't mean that he was never an atheist (although he's contradicting himself - he claims that there are no atheists as its logically impossible and also claims there are atheists, including at one point himself :crazy: )
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#190  Postby Oldskeptic » May 18, 2012 10:19 pm

I'd like this addressed by Amkerman

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1320257

How is consciousness without a brain any more possible than a square circle?
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7298
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#191  Postby ADParker » May 19, 2012 12:17 am

Oldskeptic wrote:I'd like this addressed by Amkerman

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1320257

How is consciousness without a brain any more possible than a square circle?

Well it is more possible in the sense that the former is not logically impossible.

The definition of consciousness need not include its requirement of a physical substrate (a brain.) While the definitions of squares and circles include mutually contradictory requirements; A square has exactly four sides, no more, no less, and a circle has exactly infinity.

But that is about as far as it goes; logically possible.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 45
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#192  Postby Calilasseia » May 19, 2012 1:17 am

The particle accelerator of discourse sees the appearance of more fail bosons ... let's take a look at this shall we?

amkerman wrote:There is simply no reason to attempt to dumb down the argument any further. It is clear. People talking about "my consciousness" are completely disregarding the logic to suit their own wishes.


What "logic" is this, may I ask? Only last time I checked, blind assertions erected with the intention that they be treated uncritically and unquestioningly as true, regardless of what reality has to say on the matter, do not equal "logic".

amkerman wrote:If it is "your consciousness" (as in a consciousness that is dependent upon your perception of it, or the workings of your brain) then you could not possibly be referencing an objectI've reality through it, you could only reference a completely subjective reality.


Oh dear. Looks like some elementary education is needed here.

First of all, the evidence that we have for the processes we label "consciousness", involves those processes being underpinned by testable natural mechanisms. We have ZERO evidence for anything else. Now, since those testable natural mechanisms, at bottom, operate in a repeatably reliable fashion, to the point where they can be made subject to empirical test, the minor idiosyncrasies of a particular instance of those processes, do not constitute the fatal weakness for reliable perception of observational reality, that you seem to think that they do. Most human beings possessed of normal trichromatic vision, will associate light in the 450-490 nanometre wavelength range entering their eyes and triggering their rhodopsins, with the word 'blue', for example, and the idea that this is somehow fatally compromised by individual idiosyncrasies with respect to abstract thought, is a complete non-starter that will have comptetent neuroscientists pointing and laughing. The idea that 450-490 nanometre wavelength light is "subjective" is a fantasy.

Incidentally, if you dispute the repeatable reliability of some of the underlying testable natural processes, then please, kindly explain to us all why organic chemists have been able to develop their branch of science in a rigorous manner over 200 years, if this repeatable reliability of organic reactions did not exist. I'll have fun wating for the apologetic fabrications you erect to try and sell this fantasy.

amkerman wrote:It is solipsism to think that consciousness is subject dependent. It is irrational. To save this view from irrationality many add the caveat that "yes but everyone (every human at least) has it and we all (for the most part) experience the same subjective reality through it.


I haven't made any appeal to such gibberish above. What I do recognise, based upon empirical evidence gathered over decades by relevant scientists, is that the underlying processes, the vast numbers of neurons involved, and the large number of possibilities for interconnections thereof, allow those underlying processes to underpin a fairly wide and flexible range of high-level behaviours. However, I emphasise here that it is high-level behaviours that are flexible, not the sort of processes that involve precisely quantified physical phenomena interacting at a low level. Working out that a brick has just fallen on to your foot isn't "subjective" when the brick in question has just moved along the relevant trajectory under the influence of gravity, and any suggestion that this is so is plain nonsense.

amkerman wrote:This is deeply flawed reasoning. If consciousness is subject dependent then one would have absolutely no grounds to think that there were actually other people at all, as reality would be completely dependent on "your" perception (at least as far as you could ever possibly conclude).


First of all, I haven't erected any such argument. See above. Second, if you bother to check the neuroscience literature, you'll find that some surprising results have been demonstrated empirically, that impacts upon our view of consciousness. I'll let you have fun finding some of these out, and in the process, you'll learn that some of your own assertions on the subject are hopelessly naive.

amkerman wrote:Once you start believing that reality is objective it NECESSARILY follows that you believe consciousness to be subject independent.


First of all, I'm one of those people who dispenses with 'belief' altogether, when it comes to the matter of obtaining substantive knowledge. Which is why I don't regard mythological assertions as anything other than bad fairy tales. Second, I regard consciousness to be flexible within the range of parameters permitted by the underlying testable natural processes, which is an entirely different matter.

While we're at it, you might like to ask yourself why, back in 1991, when I was in hospital with meningitis, and enjoying the dubious delights of having my cerebral cortex subjected to a body temperature of 104°F, I perceived the nurse taking my temperature to be a six foot cockroach. Fortunately, thanks to my having spent a fair amount of my adult life with a passion for entomology, this weird hallucination didn't result in me having the screaming heebie-jeebies, an effect that it might have upon many others - instead, despite my less than happy state, I decided to put this interesting hallucination to some use, and see if I could determine which species of cockroach I was hallucinating. Now, I don't even need to be an entomologist, or have knowledge of insect physiology, to know that six foot cockroaches don't exist (indeed there are sound reasons why, in the present, they are an impossibility), but during that episode in hospital, my brain cooked up this nice little visison whilst it was being cooked itself. Which means that under certain conditions, consciousness can be altered by a range of external influences, both physical and chemical. My body temperature was probably only one contributing factor in this instance - the effect of meningococcal antigens probably had a hand in this too.

amkerman wrote:People can say that I am "baiting and switching" or "trying to convince myself" or "disingenuous" or whatever, but until one can explain how, and more importantly how subject dependent consciousness is capable of referencing any sort of "reality" external to the subject, let alone a reality that is objective, all your "criticisms" seem to me at best a simple failure to understand the argument and at worst willful ignorance.


I don't have to resort to "subject dependence" to deal with these issues, I simply have to take note of the fact that consciousness is a complex phenomenon with a fairly wide range of physically permitted flexibility, and that is the case even under purportedly "normal" operating parameters. The issue starts to become interesting when you factor in abnormal operating parameters such as the ones I've described above.

amkerman wrote:If I am not responding to many of you it's because I don't believe that your criticisms are robust enough concerning the argument to warrant a response


What "argument" did you have to begin with? All I saw was the usual attempt to assert your magic man into existence. Which I dealt with by recourse to relevant evidence refuting some of those assertions. To which you responded with yet another blind assertion, to the effect that I was erecting canards, an assertion I have yet to see backed with evidence, and in the light of which, many here will regard your above assertion as blatant evasion on your part.

amkerman wrote:or they seem to me to be off topic. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything


This in itself is a statement many here will regard as disingenuous.

amkerman wrote:as a theistic innatist I am of the honest opinion that all people, atheists included, believe in God, whether they realize it or not


Your opinion is not reflected by reality. I don't believe in supernatural magic entities full stop, and indeed, regard belief itself as worthless, not least because supernaturalists keep demonstrating this every time they post yet more apologetic fabrications.

amkerman wrote:Comments directed at my posting style, life, personality, or rhetoric about the vacuousness of my arguments, simply will not be responded to by me.


Translation: "I will commit whatever discoursive abuse I want in order to propagandise for my doctrinal assertions, but if you dare complain about this, I will stop playing and take my ball home".

amkerman wrote:Feel free to talk amongst yourselves and if you actually would like to address the content of the argument in a mature and civilized fashion without and snide remarks about why it's wrong I'm more than happy.


Oh, as opposed to blindly asserting that a detailed refutation of your assertions consists of "canards", without bothering once to trouble yourself with supplying evidence to support this summary dismissal? Talk about pot, kettle, black.

Speaking of which, you asserted back on page three of this thread that I was "peddling canards", yet here we are, on page 10, and despite me asking you to back this assertion with some substance soon after you erected it, you have failed to do so. So please, don't try and fob others off with blithe assertions that their posts are somehow beneath your notice, when you have manifestly failed to apply due diligence to answering a pertinent question in this vein yourself.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21096
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#193  Postby Thommo » May 19, 2012 1:25 am

ADParker wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:I'd like this addressed by Amkerman

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1320257

How is consciousness without a brain any more possible than a square circle?

Well it is more possible in the sense that the former is not logically impossible.

The definition of consciousness need not include its requirement of a physical substrate (a brain.) While the definitions of squares and circles include mutually contradictory requirements; A square has exactly four sides, no more, no less, and a circle has exactly infinity.

But that is about as far as it goes; logically possible.


This isn't quite right, it may very well be the case that consciousness requires a physical substrate, we don't know. It's the imprecision of the definition that leads to doubt rather than any property or lack thereof, of logic. Or to put it away we require the axioms of plane geometry in addition to the logical axioms/inference schemes of first or second order logic in order to prove a contradiction from the assertion that an object is both square and circular, it is not a product of the logical axioms alone.

It's also highly dubious to say that a circle has an exact infinity of sides. Indeed it has no straight edge at all, with a curvature defined at every point of its boundary.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#194  Postby ADParker » May 19, 2012 2:16 am

Thommo wrote:
This isn't quite right, it may very well be the case that consciousness requires a physical substrate, we don't know. It's the imprecision of the definition that leads to doubt rather than any property or lack thereof, of logic. Or to put it away we require the axioms of plane geometry in addition to the logical axioms/inference schemes of first or second order logic in order to prove a contradiction from the assertion that an object is both square and circular, it is not a product of the logical axioms alone.

It is currently correct. As the definition of consciousness does not currently necessarily include a physical substrate. In all probability this is a physical requirement however, making it physically impossible (to have a mind without a 'brain' of some sort), but not logically impossible. While square circle is both physically and logically impossible.

This is an incredibly fine point however, and gets those arguing the point almost nowhere. Because to be of any value to them they have to get past logically possible to physically possible (possible in the real world.) Just as it is important to determine that an argument is logically valid, but that doesn't get you very far at all, what is needed is to determine that is also sound, or at least some reason to think that it might be.

Thommo wrote:It's also highly dubious to say that a circle has an exact infinity of sides. Indeed it has no straight edge at all, with a curvature defined at every point of its boundary.

I quite agree. I left it as "infinite sides" as a kind of shorthand. ;)
In truth the whole problem there is that the concept of "sides" doesn't really fully apply to circles. But if you want to call what circles have in relation to the number of sides of other polygons then I think "infinite" is the best choice there.

Which is why I prefer to go with "Square Triangle" instead of "Square Circle" for this example of the logically impossible. :grin:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 45
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#195  Postby hackenslash » May 19, 2012 8:49 am

amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.

No, I said that knowing you were talking crap, just for a change. In order to be an atheist, one needs to have no belief in the existece of a deity.

Conversely, in order to reject something, it is necessary for that something to exist. Further, it is necessary to acknowledge said existence, or, in
other words, to believe in it. Thus, your statement tells me that you were never an atheist, even were we to take your statement at face value which, given your posting history, would be naive in the extreme.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21158
Age: 48
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#196  Postby VazScep » May 19, 2012 9:32 am

ADParker wrote:It is currently correct. As the definition of consciousness does not currently necessarily include a physical substrate. In all probability this is a physical requirement however, making it physically impossible (to have a mind without a 'brain' of some sort), but not logically impossible. While square circle is both physically and logically impossible.
It's perfectly logical to imagine a consciousness without a physical substrate. That's how ghosts work. Though ghosts occupy haunted houses, so it seems that ghosts require a physical location. God used to require a physical location, but was allowed to be everywhere all at once, until sophistimacated filosomizers came along and decided that God could be aspatial and atemporal. What imagination!

Some topologists, though, would argue that squares and circles can be precisely the same thing. The set of points equidistant from another point according to the taxi-cab metric is precisely a square circle.

Sue me if I think that the imagination of pure mathematicians here towers over those of philosophers wibbling about consciousness.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4569

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#197  Postby Onyx8 » May 19, 2012 2:53 pm

That was lovely, Vaz.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 61
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#198  Postby MrFungus420 » May 21, 2012 3:20 am

amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.


Bullshit.

You cannot reject God if you do not have belief in God. So if you rejected God, then you were not an atheist in the way that any atheist here uses the term.

This is a bad as people saying that atheists are people who are angry with God.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#199  Postby quixotecoyote » May 21, 2012 3:47 am

MrFungus420 wrote:
amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.


Bullshit.

You cannot reject God if you do not have belief in God. So if you rejected God, then you were not an atheist in the way that any atheist here uses the term.

This is a bad as people saying that atheists are people who are angry with God.


NVM. I was a bit confused as to why an atheist would need need belief in a god to reject god, but then I read amerkan
s post and saw he was doing that bullshit "I used to be a sinning atheist, but then saw the light" song-and-dance. Yeah, rejecting the idea or existence of god as actual atheists do is a bit different from rejecting God in the sense that shilling-for-Jesus theist posers do.
User avatar
quixotecoyote
 
Posts: 1497
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#200  Postby OlivierK » May 21, 2012 2:32 pm

Three months ago, in a different thread, I posted:
OlivierK wrote:In all seriousness, amkerman, you say that you're only passingly familiar with formal logic. I don't mean to be rude, but it really shows. I think you might find a course in symbolic logic extremely enlightening.


It's like déjà vu all over again :roll:
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7461
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest